UKOLN is supported by: The JISC Information Environment Bath Profile Four Years On: what’s being done in the UK? 7 th July 2003 Andy Powell, UKOLN, University of Bath [email protected]www.bath.ac.u k A centre of expertise in digital information management www.ukoln.ac.u k
23
Embed
UKOLN is supported by: The JISC Information Environment Bath Profile Four Years On: whats being done in the UK? 7 th July 2003 Andy Powell, UKOLN, University.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
UKOLN is supported by:
The JISC Information Environment
Bath Profile Four Years On: what’s being done in the UK?
• ‘portal’ word possibly slightly misleading• the JISC IE architecture supports many
different kinds of user-focused services…– subject portal– reading list and other tools in VLE– commercial ‘portals’ (ISI Web of Knowledge, ingenta, Bb
Resource Center, etc.)– library ‘portal’ (e.g. Zportal or MetaLib)– SFX service component– personal desktop reference manager (e.g. Endnote)– increasingly rich browser-based tools – XSLT, Javascript,
Java, SOAP, …
Discovery
• technologies that allow providers to disclose metadata to portals– searching - Z39.50 (Bath Profile Functional Area C), and
SRW
– harvesting - OAI-PMH
– alerting - RDF Site Summary (RSS)
• fusion services may sit between provider and portal– broker (searching)
– aggregator (harvesting and alerting)
– catalogue (manually created records)
– index (machine-generated full-text index)
Access
• in the case of books, journals, journal articles, end-user wants access to the most appropriate copy
• need to join up discovery services with access/delivery services (local library OPAC, ingentaJournals, Amazon, etc.)
• need localised view of available services• discovery service uses the OpenURL to pass metadata
about the resource to an ‘OpenURL resolver’• the ‘OpenURL resolver’ provides pointers to the most
appropriate copy of the resource, given:– user and institutional preferences, cost, access rights, location,
etc.
Shared services
• service registry– information about collections (content) and services
(protocol) that make that content available
• authentication and authorisation• OpenURL and other resolver services• user preferences and institutional profiles• terminology services• metadata registries• ...
JISC Information Environment
JISC-fundedcontent providers
institutionalcontent providers
externalcontent providers
brokers aggregators catalogues indexes
institutionalportals
subjectportals
learning managementsystems
media-specificportals
end-userdesktop/browser pr
esen
tatio
n
fusion
prov
isio
n
OpenURLresolvers
shared infrastructure
authentication/authorisation (Athens)
JISC IE service registry
institutional preferencesservices
terminology services
user preferences services
resolvers
metadata schema registries
Summary• Z39.50 (Bath Profile), OAI, RSS are key
‘discovery’ technologies...– … and by implication, XML and
simple/unqualified Dublin Core– anticipate growing requirement to transport
‘qualified DC’ and IEEE LOM metadata
• access to resources via OpenURL and resolvers where appropriate
• Z39.50 and OAI not mutually exclusive• general need for all services to know
what other services are available to them
IE Service Registry
JISC-fundedcontent providers
institutionalcontent providers
externalcontent providers
brokers aggregators catalogues indexes
institutionalportals
subjectportals
learning managementsystems
media-specificportals
end-userdesktop/browser pr
esen
tatio
n
fusion
prov
isio
n
OpenURLresolvers
shared infrastructure
authentication/authorisation (Athens)
JISC IE service registry
institutional preferencesservices
terminology services
user preferences services
resolvers
metadata schema registries
IE Service Registry
IESR purpose
“to allow service components to discover and interact with other service components within the JISC IE”
• collection descriptions (describing the content of collections)
• service descriptions (protocol-level detail about how to interact with service components)
• many are based on XML and DC• many developers will work across all the above• desirable to have more consistent approaches
to use of– XML, XML schemas vs. DTDs, XML namespaces
e-Learning and Bath Profile
• e-Learning seems to be a significant driving force behind cross-domain activity
• is there an argument that Bath Profile should cater better for e-Learning activities?– support for qualified DC (DC-Education)– support for IEEE LOM (as per IMS Digital
Repositories Interoperability Spec.)
Conclusions
• Z39.50 and Bath Profile remains a key component in initiatives like the JISC IE
• but… it is only one component among many• deployment and use is almost always in the
context of other available technologies• future work needs to be mindful of the way the
Web is evolving (XML, URI, RDF, client/server, etc.)
• should IMS DRI (e-Learning work) be folded into Bath Profile?